James Bond 23 Is Skyfall

James Bond 23 Is SkyfallJavier Bardem will be the villain
03 November 2011 | Written by Phil de Semlyen

Skyfall, the title for James Bond 23, has been formally announced at a West End press conference disappointingly free of armed goons or men stroking cats. The news - widely speculated about online since domain names bearing permutations of the title were purchased by MGM and Sony Pictures - is hardly a big surprise. If you're holding a betting slip with 'Quantum Of Solace 2: Quantums Will Be Solaced' rip it up now, then come and work for Empire.

Entering to Monty Norman’s iconic Bond Theme, producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson were joined by director Sam Mendes who introduced most of his major cast. Judi Dench, French newcomer (and newest Bond girl) Bérénice Marlohe, Naomie Harris, and, of course, Daniel Craig. Perhaps the biggest surprise was the appearance of Javier Bardem, described by Mendes as “the villain of the piece”.

So what can we tell you about the new Bond ladies? At this point, not to much. The glamorous Marlohe enigmatically revealed that she’ll play “a glamorous, enigmatic character”, and Harris dismissed those Moneypenny rumours by announcing that she’ll play “a field agent called Eve”.

The venue of the press call - London's Corinthia Hotel - a one-time Ministry of Defence property wasn’t just a fittingly espionage-y setting for the announcement but a location for the shoot. Mendes explained that part of the film will be shot in Whitehall, as well as taking 007 to China – Shanghai and elsewhere – Istanbul and “remote” parts of Scotland.

Mendes explained that other commitments (and a lack of chairs) meant that absentees included Ben Whishsaw (“playing a part I can tell you nothing about in a scenes I can tell you nothing about”), Ralph Fiennes (ditto) and Albert Finney (ditto).

And what of the plot? According to the press release: "Bond's loyalty to M is tested to the full as her past comes back to haunt her. As M16 comes under attack, 007 must track down and destroy the threat, no matter how personal the cost."

Skyfall doesn’t relate to any other Fleming or Bond property to date, and there’s no whiff of the mysterious Quantum and its devious schemes. “It’s its own story,” stressed Mendes. “It doesn’t connect with the other films. Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and John Logan have written a fantastic script and I think it has all the ingredients to be a fantastic Bond movie, including – to quash any rumours – lots of action.”

What about gadgets? “I can’t give much away,” said Mendes, “except that there’ll be lots of surprises”. Jam trousers, here we go.

Principal photography starts on Monday. Skyfall will land on our screens on October 26, 2012.

If your just getting into Bond...its never been a better time. I'm a Bond...well fanboy is putting it mildly, and Craig is 1b) when it comes to the best Bonds. He is far closer to the literary Bond than the others and the movies are a fantastic modern remaining of the character. Casino Royale is an action classic...QOS...it was aight. This should be epic...

Craig is a much better Bond. Pierce tenure as Bond boiled down to a second coming of Roger Moores Bond, which I can't really fault him for, but it is what it is.

I think Brosnan was a great Bond, he just ended up in the shittiest Bond movies besides Goldeneye. Tomorrow Never Dies was alright but the rest were wack. Some see Daniel Craig as the second coming of Timothy Dalton's Bond.

Craig is a much better Bond. Pierce tenure as Bond boiled down to a second coming of Roger Moores Bond, which I can't really fault him for, but it is what it is.

I think Brosnan was a great Bond, he just ended up in the shittiest Bond movies besides Goldeneye. Tomorrow Never Dies was alright but the rest were wack. Some see Daniel Craig as the second coming of Timothy Dalton's Bond.

Yea that's basically what I'm saying. And I would agree on the Craig being closer to Dalton's Bond. Even QoS was a vengeful Bond much like Daltons 2nd film, License to Kill. Dalton is a lot less pulpy than his predecessor Moore, whom by Todays standards would just seem corny. Dalton and Craig brought more grit to the role.

If this is a problem, you've never seen a Bong film. They referenced products almost from the beginning, originally for no money at all. Eventually they wised up and asked for money since they were mentioning the companies anyway.

When it comes to Bond, I'm a bit of a geek. Owe them all, have the Encyclopedia, Goldfinger poster on my wall. Only thing left for me is the book since I'm starting once I'm done with the never ending ESPN oral history.

Casino Royale was a great Bond flick, especially after Die Another Day, which I consider to be the worst Bond film (more than A View To A Kill, the generally consensus as worst Bond film) by a long shot. QoS to me was a step WAY back because it was basically a mindless action flick: only thing 007 about it was Bond and M, really. Mendes is a great director so I have faith in this one, especially with the longer time between movies.

In terms of Bonds it's Connery, Bronsnan, Craig (has a chance to overtake Pierce if his movies stay good), Dalton with Moore and Lazenby tied in the back as Moore's Bond films were generally too campy and terrible and Lazenby only did one flick before being fired/quitting. On Her Majesty's Secret Service was actually a highlight of the first half of the series though, I just wish Connery was there for it.

About the Tarantino video about: from what I read, he wants to do a Bond movie but because the series generally follows a formula and has a series already somewhat in place, the producers felt bringing in a stylistic director like QT wouldn't work. He'd write the script himself and add his own flash to the visuals, making it a Tarantino spy film using Bond characters' names instead of a true Bond movie. It's possibly with the two Craig films so far not following the past formula that that could change, but it's doubtful. Hopefully he just does his own spy film, which would be incredible.

Not sure if that's aimed at me, but I never said it was a problem, and I've seen/own them all.

As for Tarantino fellating himself, the decision to make a Casino Royale film had nothing to do with him. EON didn't have the rights to Casino Royale and had been wanting to make a cr film for years. It only became a possibility in 1999 when MGM sold the rights to Spider-Man to Sony, in doing so they got Casino Royale's right back as part of the package. Not that Tarantino would have ever been allowed to direct a Bond film anyways.

in terms of Bond ranking, I don't think Craig has a chance to overtake Pierce, I strongly believe he has already surpassed Pierce even though QoS wasn't that good(though I attribute it's shortcomings to the writer strike, really not anyones fault how that turned out). Pierce tenure as Bond has already pretty much been tainted as the second coming of Roger Moore(not his fault but it is what it is). I may be in the minority in the next opinion, but I think Lazenby had the potential to have been an even better Bond than Connery had he actually stayed to do more films and had at least decent scripts(he was definitely the best physical Bond). Timothy Dalton was my favorite Bond not named Connery for the longest time, but now we have Craig. Roger Moore is just wack, campy and too old. That nigga is bottom tier Bond.